Chattisgarh High Court
Kejuram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 February, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1026 of 2024
1 - Kejuram Sahu S/o Shri Tularam Sahu, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village -
Ranbod, Tehsil and Police Station - Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)
2 - Johan Sahu S/o Shri Kejuram Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village
Ranbod, Tehsil and Police Station - Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)
3 - Mohan Sahu S/o Shri Kejuram Sahu, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village -
Ranbod, Tehsil and Police Station - Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)
4 - Vishal Sahu S/o Shri Vijay Sahu, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village - Ranbod,
Tehsil and Police Station - Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station In-Charge, Police Station - Navagarh,
District Bemetara (C.G.)
... Respondent
19-02-2025 Heard Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Ms. Sareena Khan, learned counsel appearing for
appellant No.2 and 4 and Mr. Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel
appearing for appellant No.1 and 3. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh
Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 03/2025 filed by Ms. Sareena Khan,
Advocate, which is an application for grant of permission to assist
the earlier counsel appearing for appellants No.1 and 3.
Considering the fact that Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate
appearing for appellants No.2 and 4 has also filed her memo of
appearance for appellant No.2 and 4 and there is no memo of
appearance filed on behalf of appellant no.1 and 3 and also in view
of the fact that appellant No.1 and 3 are represented by Mr.
Shailendra Dubey, Advocate, I.A. No.3/2025 is disposed of.
Also heard on I.A. No.2/2024 which is an application under
Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail pending disposal of the appeal to the appellants.
The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-02-2024
passed in Sessions Case No. 33/2020 by the learned Sessions
Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in the following manner
with a direction to run all the jail sentences concurrently :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 302 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for Life (thrice) and
Section 34 of the IPC fine of Rs.5000/- (thrice), in default of
payment of fine additional R.I. for 6 months
U/s 307 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and
Section 34 of the IPC fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of
fine additional R.I. for 3 months
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants No.2 and 4
submits that there is inconsistency in the evidence of alleged eye-
witnesses which affects the prosecution's case. Their evidence are
liable to be disbelieved on the ground of their inconsistency. They
being relatives of the deceased and interested witnesses, cannot be
believed. She would further submit that Komal Sahu (PW-7) who is
alleged to be injured witness has also stated a different story of the
incident with that of the FIR and 161 Cr.P.C. statement. The
complainant party were aggressor and the incident occurred in heat
of passion. These appellants are in jail since 29-01-2020 and final
adjudication of the case will take its own time. Therefore, they may
be enlarged on bail.
Mr. Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel appearing for
appellants No.1 and 3 has also submitted that from the evidence of
Komal Sahu (PW-7) who is alleged to be injured eye-witness and
from other witnesses no offence against the appellants No.1 and 3
have been proved. There is no allegation against appellant No.1
Kejuram Sahu that he assaulted the deceased persons. There are
material discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. The
learned trial Court has relied upon the CCTV footage with respect to
presence of the appellants at the place of incident, but the same
has not been proved in accordance with law. The weapon of the
offence has not been seized from appellants No.1 and 3. Appellant
No.1 and 3 are also in jail since 29-01-2020 and entire family
members have been roped in the alleged offence. The final
adjudication of the appeal will take another couple of years,
therefore, they may also be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently
opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants and has submitted that it is a case of triple murder and
Komal Sahu (PW-7) is injured witness. The incident is witnessed by
Kunti Bai Sahu (PW-1), Bhuvaneshwari Sahu (PW-2) who duly
supported the prosecution's case. Although they are relatives of the
deceased persons, but they would be the most material witness in
the case. The appellants have been named in the Dehati Nalisi Ex.-
P/8. The weapon of offence have been seized from appellant No.1,
2 and 3 and clothes of the appellants have also been seized in
which human blood was found in FSL examination. In the CCTV
footage and the photographs, the presence of the appellants in the
place of incident is proved. He would further submit that from the
evidence of injured witness and the eye-witnesses, it is quite clear
that the appellants were the aggressor who committed murder of
three persons by giving fatal blow upon them by axe. There was
dispute between the deceased persons and the appellants with
respect to medh of the field, therefore, from every angle there is
sufficient evidence against the appellants that they committed
murder of three deceased persons and looking to the gravity of the
offence, they are not entitled for bail.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, further considering the evidence of injured eye-witness
Komal Sahu (PW-7), his MLC report Ex.-P/36, evidence of eye-
witnesses Kunti Bai Sahu (PW-1), Bhuvaneshwari Sahu (PW-2),
postmortem report of three deceased persons Santu Sahu,
Ex.-P/33, Nirmala Sahu Ex.-P/34 and Khuban Sahu, Ex.-P/35 and
after considering the seizure of weapon of offence as well as
clothes from the accused persons and presence of blood in the said
articles, further taking into consideration the fact that present
appellants are named in dehati nalisi Ex.-P/8, we are not inclined to
release the appellants on bail. Therefore, their bail application I.A.
No.2/2024 is rejected.
After passing of the above order, when the Court expressed
its view that looking to the detention period of the appellants this
Court is ready to hear the matter finally today itself, learned counsel
for the respective appellants shown their inability to argue the
matter finally and submitted that they have prepared the case for
hearing on bail application and not prepared the case for final
hearing today and prayed for some time to argue the matter finally.
On the request made by the learned counsel for the
respective appellants, let the matter be listed on 18 th March, 2025
for final hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil
